Saturday, June 13, 2009

And so begins a new blog...

Having just completed my first formal run for a seat on the Bar Harbor Town Council -- after last year being available as a write-in -- it seems appropriate to create a blog to share observations and ideas. This year's run was unsuccessful in getting me elected, but was very successful in allowing me to meet and network with many friends and neighbors and share ideas about our community.

For those who missed my reasons for running or how I voted or the candidates debate, I will include links here. The election results are available on the Town of Bar Harbor website. Although only receiving 12.6% of the votes cast, I feel I did ok, since I was a virtual unknown and went against the tide on some popular issues in a field of well known and popular candidates.

I congratulate my friends and neighbors Jane Disney and Peter St. Germain on their election to the Bar Harbor Town Council, and hope they do well in their first term of office.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Why The Owner Of Town Hill Market Says "Vote No On Article 4"

My thanks to Richard Simis – owner of the Town Hill Market – for granting permission for me to post his letter to the editors of our local papers here on my website. In the letter Richard very eloquently makes the case for rejecting the moratorium measure on the June 9th ballot, and spells out why this well intentioned but aggressive effort by a small vocal minority may actually do harm to our island community.

This letter appears in the June 4th 2009 editions of the Mount Desert Islander and the Bar Harbor Times:

To the Editor:

As a resident and Business owner (The Town Hill Market), I ask you to please vote no on article 4, to reject the Moratorium Ordinance on June 9th, at the Bar Harbor Town meeting.

Any Moratorium has the potential to hurt local contractors, builders, tradesmen and laborers. The Winter has been long and the economy has been tough on most businesses. Let us not make it worse.

A Moratorium is not necessary. The 2007 Bar Harbor Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Ordinances and Regulations, do currently cover all of Town Hill. The Town Hill Business District was earmarked for growth in the 2007 Plan.

A Moratorium has a definite term. The Town Hill Mini Plan, (THMP), is being rushed to be completed for a fall vote. There are too many problem areas that need further input and discussions for the THMP. The THMP should not be rushed.

At the February 11th, 2009, community workshop, ( the final workshop) for the THMP, nearly 33% of the participants were not Bar Harbor residents. A third of the people who were guiding the future of Town Hill, Bar Harbor, were from somewhere else! It is not right that people from other towns should have input into the opinions that were used to form decisions that guided the THMP. The Planning Department should not have permitted non Bar Harbor residents to participate. This was the most important meeting of the Planning process and the results are possibly flawed.

The THMP calls for a limit of a single building to 5000 SF. This makes some existing buildings non-conforming. There will be little commercial growth.

The THMP calls for 10000 SF minimum lot size. That could be up to 4 houses per acre! Where will the water come from? Where will the waste water go? The impact of such reckless development could be a disaster to the wetlands and water supply. Such development would make Town Hill look like Suburbia! I moved to Town Hill almost 10 years ago because I liked the rural charm it has.

There are many more reasons to work on the THMP. These will take time, they should not be rushed.

The Village of Town Hill is vibrant community of businesses and residents, more than were included in the THMP. We need to look at Town Hill as a whole village that is part of Bar Harbor. Breaking it up into small sections does not address the whole picture and is a disservice to those who live and work here. The Town HIll Mini-Plan is the biggest threat to the future of Town HIll.

Again, I ask you to vote no on article 4, the moratorium ordinance.

Richard Simis

Town Hill Market


Blog Content © 2009 James N. Riley Jr., All rights reserved.
Letter © 2009 Richard Simis, Used With Permission

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

How I Voted This Year And Why

While I believe that passing new regulations cannot solve problems, some situations may call for new rules. In those situations the decision should be left to the voters, and their decision should be made by secret ballot in a proper election. It is for this reason that I am leery of a "Town Meeting" format where a meeting can be "packed" with supporters of a particular cause, and where those who have work or other scheduling conflicts may not be able to attend. It is my belief that all decisions voted on should be clearly spelled out in full on the ballot, and that executives, boards, and committees empowered to decide regulations and budgets for us should be elected through this same direct balloting process.

I feel very deeply that the only wasted vote is the vote that isn't cast. While your particular view may not prevail in every election, but if you do not vote then you chose to accept whatever outcomes the other voters decide for you. Here is a scan of the actual ballot I cast today via the "absentee ballot" process at the Bar Harbor Town Clerk's office. I hope this explanation of how I voted and my reasoning process will give you some insight into my thought process and help you make your own voting decisions.


How James N. Riley Jr. ('Jay') voted on his June 9th, 2009 absentee ballot

Since 35 of my friends and neighbors were gracious enough to sign their names to allow me to launch a candidacy for Town Council this year, naturally one of the votes I cast for the two open positions was for myself – James N. Riley Jr. The decision as to who to cast my second vote for was not an easy one. All four of the remaining candidates offer unique qualifications, perspectives, and life experience, and each would enrich the council in their own way. Since my candidacy was driven by a desire to balance the council in the direction of restraint in creation of new rules and complexities, I looked for candidates who bring such perspective to the mix.

Both incumbent candidate Julia Schloss and scientist Jane Disney seem to favor strong environmental regulation to the exclusion of resident homeowners. As a former Theravada Buddhist monk who has practiced in the forest tradition I myself am a firm believer of the value of the forest and of nature to our happiness and survival. I do not believe we can gain that happiness by dictating the actions of others. By doing so we make ourselves and those we try to control miserable. It is far better to lead by example, and instead focus on positive reinforcement to achieve our goals. It seems far better to illustrate to others what they can do rather than simply tell them what they cannot do.

This left a choice between Chris Maller and Peter St. Germain. Both disclaimed an agenda – although I believe we all obviously have our biases – which I interpret as meaning they feel it is important to keep an open mind. Based on an earlier recommendation by a friend – who thought Peter shared my sense that our municipal code is becoming excessively complicated – I voted for Peter St. Germain. It was a very tough call, since Chris Maller has a keen grasp of the dynamics in our community and articulates our options extremely well. Both Peter and Chris would provide a good balance to the council in the direction of judicious use of regulation, and support for family businesses and the year round community.

My vote for the candidate for "Superintending School Committee" I did not have a strong impression of either candidate, and followed another friend's instincts in my choice.

It is unfortunate that no candidates submitted petitions for the two MDI School Trustee positions. Happily my friends Susan Maristany and Lisa Krautweld have consented to be considered as write-in candidates. Although neither has formally declared a candidacy, both want what is best for our community and are willing to serve if elected. Suzy is a former school teacher who works at Butterfield's, and Lisa is a parent who works at MDI Hospital and at Hannaford's.

After seeing a series of radical changes to the Land Use Ordinance rushed into law with minimal voter participation (the "Floor Area Ratio" calculations for Downtown Residential District I and the controversial "Vacation Rentals" rules were approved with only 627 ballots cast, the latter rules passing by only 127 votes), I have adopted a "just say no" policy towards additional changes. If we do not put the brakes on these runaway changes by a very active political minority we will wind up with a set of rules so convoluted that they will be almost impossible to enforce fairly or consistently. Rushing a new rule through every time something bothers us is not the way to solve things. We keep coming up with "comprehensive plans" without ever fully implementing them, yet some of us genuinely believe the solution to this is more plans and more rules loosely based on those plans.

Probably one of the most controversial articles on the ballot this year is the proposed moratorium which was drafted to keep just one business out of just one neighborhood. It happens to be a neighborhood with a high percentage of affluent newcomers who are extremely politically active. We already have a "Comprehensive Plan" and a planning review process to allow citizens to express their views and limit runaway growth. The process was less restrictive years back, yet citizens were able to defeat an unpopular plan to bring a seasonal McDonald's franchise here. I oppose the moratorium because it obviously targets one business, and does so before they have even submitted a plan for review. It encourages radicalization of the process and discourages outside businesses from even considering investing in our community. Let them submit their plan. Let citizens limit unwanted growth through the existing mechanisms. By all means do prevent off-island businesses from running amok in our town. But do so without the torches and pitchforks. "The ends justifies the means" is the rallying cry of a tyrant. I believe we are better than that.


UPDATE: The owner of the Town Hill Market – often cited by proponents of the ordinance as one of the small businesses they believe they are protecting – has written a courageous letter to the editors of our local papers urging us to vote no on article 4! Click here to read the letter.


Copyright (c) 2009 J. N. Riley Jr., All rights reserved.

[last edited 2009-06-06 3:59 PM]

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Why I Am Running For Bar Harbor Town Council (June 9th, 2009 Election)

The catalyst for my entering town politics, as a newcomer and relative unknown, has its roots in my "fixer upper" house. I have a leaky roof under a deck in the back of the building, which apparently has been a problem for about the last 20 years. While I was mulling over the option of enclosing the deck, extending the main roof to cover it and where I would get money to do that, we passed a dramatic set of changes to the Land Use Ordinance, representing 50 pages of elaborate new rules. That particular vote saw only 672 total votes cast, and the measures which now prevents me from proceeding passed by only 305 votes.

In the most recent "Comprehensive Plan" for Bar Harbor the sponsors are proud of the fact that 250 people participated in their summer "visioning sessions" which lead to the document's creation. One of the next statistics in that plan is that about 500 people have moved to Bar Harbor in the past 10 years. One interpretation of these numbers is that half of the people who moved here in the past 10 years are now trying to change the town to suit their own vision of things.

Obviously that is an over simplification, but relying too heavily on any compilation of statistics runs the risk of missing the bigger picture and may lead to inaccurate conclusions. I doubt that many Lobster Fishermen were present at the visioning sessions, nor those of us "working class" folk who have to work all summer to pay our bills for the year. The bigger picture here is that over the years many waves of newcomers have come to this town, drawn by the simpler way of life, closeness to nature, and small town living. The more recent waves over the past 10, 20, and 30 years are no different. There is an unconscious tendency to try to shape our new home here in Bar Harbor to match expectations based on places we have lived before. City dwellers move here and unwittingly bring the urban or suburban mindset with them.

With each wave of changes to the Land Use Ordinance entire neighborhoods in Bar Harbor – quaint, picturesque, homey – become "non-conforming properties" according to this increasingly urban mindset. Although the town came about as a result of neighbors building as they saw fit, and doing so right to the edge of their property line, with the suburban mentality we are not just governing our own lives but now trying to tell neighbors what they must and must not do. If all the parcels in downtown Bar Harbor's Residential District I were re-drawn and re-built according to this new urban mindset and all the recent changes to the Town Charter, what you would wind up with is "Suburbia By The Sea", not a picturesque New England town.

It is to some extent a modern "Pilgrims and Indians". I doubt that most European settlers coming to the "new world" held any particular grudge against the indigenous Americans when they came. One would probably not have to dig too far to find quotes from that era explaining that the newcomers were merely trying to share their greater literacy and education, advanced technology, and greater wealth with the natives, that the natives simply did not understand the value of what was being offered to them, and that once they were forced to adapt to the influx that they would one day be grateful for the good influence.

Those among us who are fortunate enough to be able to retire or move to Bar Harbor with savings and means to enjoy a comfortable life without the necessity of working (may work to keep busy, because they enjoy it, or to supplement what they already have), should make no mistake. You are in a position to be more politically active – voting, attending meetings, serving on various committees and boards – and because of your luxury of available time you will exert a disproportional influence over the community. Take heed from the example of the European settlers and the Native Americans, do not kid yourself that you can make radical changes adding new levels of complexity to a system and still preserve that same system. You cannot burn a village to save a village.

I recognize that I too am a newcomer and a relative unknown. I was born in Washington, D.C. on September 11th, 1960. When I was 10 I lived for a year in a small Thai village (population of around 400 people, no electricity, running water, or paved roads – life as it has been lived for millennia). As a teenage computer wiz I foolishly dropped out of High School and had to learn the hard way the value of credentials in the working world. I am fortunate to have aptitude for technology, and started my consulting practice in the 80's while living in California, and supported myself for many years doing a mixture of computer consulting and software engineering (I have written commercial software including a project of over 25,000 lines of C and assembly language programming). Prior to moving to Bar Harbor I was fortunate enough to step back from worldly existence and return to Thailand where I observed Thai traditional and temporarily ordained as a Buddhist monk ("bhikkhu"), and spent 3 years in practice before returning to lay life. While in the role of an ascetic wandering monk I traveled on foot for hundreds of miles through numerous rain forests and encountered many Thai and hill tribe communities, witnessing functioning small communities, and those being overtaken by modern influences. After "taking leave of the teachings" (a translation of the Thai expressions for return to lay life) I moved to Bar Harbor in 2004, drawn by the proximity to the forest (I knew of Bar Harbor because my Dad lives in Brewer, and I had visited maybe 4 or 5 times since my mother's death in 1991).

My perspective is unusual, having lived in big cities, small towns, and even pre-industrial parts of a developing nation. Small communities work through neighbors talking to each other. They break down when regulation is used as a substitute. Rules are necessary, but the ones with real merit are those that follow the guiding principle "be good to others". Buddhism -- and other belief systems -- teach that "desire is the root cause of discontent". It is important to bear this in mind when trying to make changes to a working community. The "drawbridge syndrome" we see in Bar Harbor -- wanting to pull up the drawbridge after we get here so we aren't overrun by others coming here – is human nature. Ironically if someone else had pulled up the drawbridge we would not be here.

I vehemently oppose moves to turn Bar Harbor into a gated community. This trend is destructive to the year round community, and especially to the working class folk who serve the community and actually make it a community and not just a seasonal amusement park. I hope to remind everyone that it is not sufficient to proclaim support for "affordable housing" but then say "not in my backyard". In 2005 we passed a referendum enabling property owners to have more living units on their property for "affordable housing", a worthy goal. In 2006 (as a part of that sweeping 50 pages of changes and increased complexity) we passed rules reducing the allowed density, effectively negating the affordable housing measure. The solution to incomplete or inadequate rules is *not* to pass more rules (think of the rhyme "there was an old lady who swallowed a fly"). Now there is talk of more sweeping changes to rules in Town Hill to turn it into a gated community. Ironically "Indian Point" is in that neighborhood. It seems to me the pilgrims are about to run the rest of the Indians off, if they have not done so already.

Although obviously different in how it carries out instructions, a legal system or town government can in fact be described as a "finite state machine" just as a computer can, and some of the same rules of good design apply. The popular misconception about programming is that you just figure everything out, write it all down, and if you planned enough and wrote enough it will all work. The truth is 75% of a programmer's time is spent debugging. Not creating new rules, but simplifying and removing dead wood. I read a book in the late 80's by Dr. Boris Bezier's called "Software Testing Techniques and System Design". The rule of thumb he offers is approximately one bug per 100 lines of code. Think of the lines of instructions as moving parts, and it intuitively makes sense. If this is confusing, just remember the engineering K.I.S.S. axiom "Keep It Simple [and] Stupid". Growth and change are inevitable and we cannot always "cure" that with more rules or more committees and boards. Let me offer another old adage -- one of my favorite quotes -- "an elephant is a horse designed by committee". Greater complexity does not ensure better design.

So this is how I went from a leaky roof to a run for town council as an unknown newcomer. Seeing things from the perspective of a fresh set of eyes, I believe we will best serve the viability of our year round community by slowing down this runaway increase in complexity of building codes and zoning laws. We should be encouraging neighbors to solve their differences by talking to each other instead of complaining to the town office. Whether we are creating computer programs, land use rules, or a cookbook, we will achieve our best results by keeping the design simple and to the point.

Copyright © 2009 J. N. Riley Jr., All rights reserved.

[last edited 2009-06-06 5:05 PM]